



































it i ars OS® aye r ‘ . a ( 
STATEMENT 
"CAUSES WHICH LED TO THE WITHDRAWAL | 
DHPUITLES ( 


FROM THE LATE 


DIOCESAN CONVENTION 


OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 





_ PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ~ 
APPOINTED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 


CHARLESTON, S. C. 


-WALKER, Evans & CoGswELu Co., PRINTERS, 
Nos. 3 and 5 Broad and 117 East Bay Streets. - : ' 


(OC ee ae 























¥ 


on) BIMENT 


OF THE 


CAUSES WHICH LED TO THE WITHDRAWAL 


DEPUTIES 


FROM THE LATE 


DIUGESAN GOUNVENTION 


_— 
— 


OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 


PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE 


APPOINTED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 


CHARLESTON, S. C. 


Waker, Evans & CocgsweLt Co., PRINTERS, 
Nos 3and 5 Broad and 117 East Bay Streets. 


1887. 


» 
' 
- 
- 
¢ 
J 
~ 
. 
. 
: ‘ 
7 
- 
. 
’ Pa 
as 
‘ 
an iy 
e ¢ 
- 





THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 


SAT he N Te 


To THE MEMBERS OF THE PROTESTANT EpiscopaL CHURCH 
IN THE DIocESE OF SouTH CAROLINA: 


The undersigned were appointed a Committee by the 
Delegates who withdrew from the late Diocesan Convention 
to prepare a statement of the causes which impelled them to 
do so. 

It will be necessary in doing this to recall the history of 
the great question which so unhappily has divided this Dio- 
cese for the last twelve years. This we shall endeavor, 

calmly and dispassionately, to do, and that as briefly as pos- 
sible; and, minding the deep feeling which has arisen in 
regard to it, we shall be careful to avoid, if possible, any ex- 
pression which may wound the feelings of those who differ 
with us, especially as we remember that those with whom 
we have chiefly now to contend in this matter are those to 
whom in our childhood we were taught in our catechism 
that it is our duty to submit ourselves as to our “ governors, 
teachers, spiritual pastors and masters.” Which inall mat- 
ters pertaining to their rightful authority we reverently pray 
that we may do; but as reverently will we maintain the 
rights of the Order in the Church which as Laymen we 
represent. 


CoNVENTION OF 1875. 


The Convention which met May 12th, 1875, wasa memor- 
able one. It was opened with the grand and imposing 
ceremonial commemorating the existence of the Church 
in this Province and State for two hundred years—an 
occasion upon which, as it was so well said, those who had 
worshipped sought the quiet of their homes in grateful peace, 





4 


feeling that for the future as well as for the past the beautiful 
day had been a day of memory. 

But little did they think that from thenceforth the peace 
of the Church in this Diocese was, too, to be but a memory 
—a thing of the past—that the very next day would in- 
augurate a struggle for an innovation upon the constituency 
of the government of the Church which would for more 
than a decade of the new century rend the Diocese asunder, 
and that twelve years thereafter the oldest servants of the 
Church—those who had devoted their whole lives to her 
service—more than one of whom had been in her councils 
for more than half a century—would be seen walking down 
that same aisle, through which the solemn procession of 
Bishop, priests and people had just passed and repassed, leay- 
ing in sorrow and distress a body in which they Had so long 
served, and the council of the Church which they so loved. 

But so it was to be. Foran innovation of at least doubt- 
ful expediency in the Church, after two hundred years of 
its existence in our land, Bishop and clergy were willing 
to see the lay representatives of two-thirds of her Laymen 
leave her Convention. 


On the next day, May 13th, the Convention met, and upon 
its organization the Bishop communicated the application of 
St, Mark’s Church (colored)for admission to the Convention, 
whereupon the following resolution was proposed : 


Resolved, That the application of St. Mark’s congregation for admis- 
sion into union with this Convention be referred to a commission of 
—— —,, to be appointed by the Bishop, to report to the next Convention 
upon the same, and allits relations to the Church and constitution of 
this Diocese. 


This resolution gave rise to a discussion, which was con- 
tinued until the next day. During the discussion several 
amendments were suggested and moved, two of which we 
will quote because, though both were laid on the table, 
they are significant as indicating the views the movers 
then entertained. 


5 


The Rey. J. H. Cornish offered the following as a sub- 
stitute : 

One lay delegate chosen ly the communicants of any missionary 
station or congregation of colored people represented in this Conven- 
tion by the rector or missionary in charge, acting under the ecclesiastical 
authority of the Diocese, shall be entitled to have seats assigned 
them in this house, and may be allowed to speak on any question 
directly and specially affecting their respective parishes or stations, 
and no others, upon the motion of any member of this Convention. 


This motion was laid on the table, and the Rev. Mr. 
Prentiss offered the following as a substitute: 


Resolved, That while this Convention welcomes the delegates from 
St. Mark’s to all the rights and privileges of this body, it expressly 
declares and insists that this case shall not be drawn into precedent ; 
but that hereafter all applications kindred to that of St. Mark’s shall be 
received and decided, each one on its individual merits, and that this 
Convention possesses and will exercise the right of excluding from the body 
all such delegates of the class herein referred, as it shall hereafter regard 
likely to interrupt the peace of the Church or impede the glory of God. 


This motion was also laid on the table, and the resolution 
referring the application of St. Mark’s to a commission was 
adopted—the number of the commission being fixed at seven. 

It will be observed here that in the commencement, the 
clergy were not at least unanimous upon the application to 
this question of St, Paul’s maxim that as to those who have 
been baptized into Christ, there is neither bond nor free, &c. 

On the contrary, both these clergymen recognized clearly 
the right of the Convention to discriminate as to colored 
people because of their race. Mr. Prentiss went so far as 
broadly to assert that the Convention possesses and will exercise 
the right of excluding from thas body all such delegates of the class 
herein referred, as it shall hereafter regard likely to interrupt the 
peace of the Church or impede the glory of God. 

He not only asserts the right to exclude colored people 
from the Convention, but he recognizes that the admission 
of such people into our Convention may be “likely to inter- 
rupt the peace of the Chureh or impede the glory of God.” 

If laymen still hold to these opinions entertained by 
clergymen twelve years ago, are we to be blamed ? 


‘6 
CONVENTION OF 1876. 


The commission of seven appointed, under the resolution 
adopted, consisted of the Rev. Messrs. C. C. Pinckney, D. D., 
James H. Elliott, D. D., R.S. Trapier and Ellison Capers, and 
Messrs. Edward McCrady, George A. Trenholm and Wm. F. 
Colecock. Of these, the Rev. Mr. Capers at that time 
removed from the Diocese, and Mr. Trenholm’s health pre- 
vented his serving. Of the other members, the Rey. Mr. 
Trapier and Messrs. McCrady and Colcock united in one report 
against the admission of St. Mark’s Church into the Con- 
vention, and the Rey. Dr. Pinckney and the Rey. Dr. Elliott 
each presented a separate individual report in fayor of its 
admission. 

The report of Messrs. Trapier, McCrady and Coleock con- 
cluded as follows: 


“Tn conclusion, the undersigned cannot recommend the admission 
of St. Mark’s congregation into union with this Convention : 


“(1.) Because the admission of all other colored congregations must 
follow that of St. Mark’s, as there is no sound reason for making it an 
exception ; and, in the opinion of the undersigned, the Chureh is bound 
to recognize in all its relations to the world, and its offices to mankind, 
that distinction between the races of men which God has been pleased 
to ordain and to conform its polity and ecclesiastical organisms to His 
divine ordinance. ; 


““(2.) Because our colored population are at this time, and must, for a 
long time to come, be a missionary field, and our Right Reverend 
Fathers in God have already taken the matter in hand, and will prob- 
ably make ample provision for them and other races within our terri- 
torial limits. 


“(3.) Because, in the opinion of the undersigned, St. Mark’s congrega- 
tion cannot now send delegates competent to act as legislators for our 
Diocese. 

“(4.) Because their admission may drive away some of the Churches 
now in union, and make others indifferent to preserving their connec- 
tion with this Convention. 


““(5.) Because the members of St. Mark’s congregation can, without 
their admission to this body, enjoy every catholic Christian right, and 
their introduction to our representative legislative body involves their 
participation, in powers, they are not prepared to exercise advantage- 
ously to the Church in this Diocese.” 


7 


To this was appended a copy of a report upon the same 
subject made to the Convention of the Diocese of New York 
in 1846, and which the undersigned also addas an appendix 
(“A”) to this paper. From this report to the New York 
Convention, it will be seen that the same views we now 
entertain upon the subject of the admission of the colored 
element into our Diocesan Convention were entertained by 
the churchmen of New York forty years ago; and that if 
it be true that we are now contra mundum, it is to a new doc- 
trine thereon that we are so opposed, and not to a matter of 
inherent right, which, if it exists to-day, must have existed 
for all time—semper eadem. 

Dr. Pinckney’s report ended with the recommendation of 
two resolutions, as follows: 


Resolved, That the application of St. Mark’s for admission to union 
with this Convention be granted. 

Resolved, That this Convention memorialize the General Convention 
to provide Missionary Suffragan Bishops for the spiritual oversight of 
the colored race. 


The question was elaborately discussed in the Conven- 
tion, to which these reports were made, and which was held 
in Columbia in 1876. Upon the question of the adoption 
of the first resolution, above mentioned, viz: that the ap- 
pleation of St. Mark’s for admission to union with this 
Convention be granted, the vote was taken, and the resolu- 
tion was lost by a non-concurrence of orders, as follows: 
Of the Clergy, ayes, 17; nays, 9; of the Laity, ayes, 12; 
nays, 17; divided, 2. 


STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE SaALtus’ Cass, 1880. 


The question thus decided was allowed to rest for several 
years. It was, however, in a measure, revived in 1880, by 
the application of Thaddeus Saltus, a colored person, for 
admission to the order of Deacon. His application, it was 
understood, caused considerable discussion in the Standing 
Committee, before whom it came. ‘This discussion 


8 


resulted in the adoption of the following resolutions, to 
be found in the Journal of the Convention for the year 
1881, and which will explain the conditions under which 
his credentials were passed as an exceptional case : 


Resolved, I. That under Divine Providence two races have been 
brought together in this Diocese to occupy the same territory, differing 
in all those essential characteristics which constitute different peoples, 
and most especially in Christian knowledge and culture. 

Resolved, II. That under such circumstances this Diocese has become 
a missionary field, in which the race in possession of the higher gifts 
should endeavor to advance the Christian condition of their deficient 
neighbors, and are invested with proper authority to promote that end. 

Resolved, III. That it would reverse the order of missionary opera- 
tions, and evenof nature itself,and would tend to the advantage of 
neither race, that the race having the lesser Christian knowledge and 
culture should be advanced to the position of teachers and rulers of the 
other race. 

Resolved, IV. That the authorities of the Church not realizing that 
this is the condition of the Southern Dioceses have as yet made no 
provision for its remedy, and that until such provision shall be made it 
is not expedient to invest individuals of the less advanced race with 
official authority over the other race. 

Resolved, V. That the practices of the early Church and the experi- 
ence of our own missionaries in like circumstances, suggests the em- 
ployment of evangelists and catechists, or some order of inferior clergy, 
who, under the direction of the Bishop, could supply such religious 
teaching and services as the occasion may require. 

Resolved, VI. That the case now presented to the Committee is excep- 
tional in so many particulars, that when it is understood to be the in- 
tention of the applicant to confine the ministrations of his office to St. 
Marks and similar congregations, the objections to his admission may 
be considered as sufficiently obviated to allow his testimonials to be 
signed by the whole Committee. 

C. C. PINCKNEY, 
President. 

There has always been a question as to a further under- 
standing in relation to the Saltus case, viz: that he was not 
to take his seat in the Convention; but however that may 
be, whether it was a mistake on the part of those who 
thought they had such an assurance, we will not discuss. 
What we now wish to call attention to are certain state- 
ments or admissions in these resolutions which are made by 
the unanimous consent of the Standing Committee, includ- 


9 


ing, of the clergy, the Rev. Dr. Pinckney, Rev. Dr. Porter, 
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jackson, who has since left the Diocese, 
and Mr. Campbell. 

These clergymen unite in agreeing as to the anomalous 
condition of the*Church in this Diocese, to wit: that two 
races are brought together, differing in all those essential 
characteristics which constitute different peoples, and most 
especially in Christian knowledge and culture; that under 
such circumstances the Diocese has become a missionary 
field ; “ that it would reverse the order of missionary opera- 
tions, and even of nature itself, and would tend to the advan- 
tage of neither race, that the race having the lesser Christian 
knowledge and culture should be advanced to the position 
of teachers and rulers of the other race;” and that for the 
present, at least, “it is not expedient to invest individuals of 
the less advanced race with official authority over the other 
race.” 

These are certainly strong, though but true statements 
of the difficulties of our position and they go to show that 
the position of the laity in fact ditfers from that of many 
at least of the clergy, not in principle, but in expediency. 
The clergymen who agreed to this statement fully recognize 
the peculiar condition of things in the Diocese, and they 
recognize the evils. They differ from us only as to the 
measure of the danger, and the manner of avoiding it. 


SEWANEE CONFERENCES, 1883. 


But the peculiarity as well as the difficulty of the relation 
of the Church to the colored people has been fully recog- 
nized, not only in our own Diocese, but throughout the 
Church in the South. In April, 1883, the Bishop of Mis- 
sissippi, the late venerable Bishop Green, addressed a com- 
munication to all the Bishops of the Southern States, inviting 
their attendance at the University of the South, at Sewanee, 
for the purpose of conferring upon this matter of such vital 
importance, and requested them to bring with them some 
one of their clergy. By a subsequent communication, each 


10 


Bishop was requested to bring with him also one layman. 
In response to this invitation, bishops, clergy, and laymen 
from all the Southern States attended at Sewanee on the 
25th July, 1883. 

At this Conference the question was considered of Suffragan 
Bishops, such as had been suggested by the Rey. Dr. 
Pinckney in his minority report to our Convention of 1876, 
i. e. Bishops who, it was suggested, should be appointed for 
one or more Dioceses desiring their services, who should be 
charged with the organization of the colored members into 
congregations and convocations or conventions as the 
General Convention should determine; that is, for the 
establishment of a distinct organization for the colored 
people. The committee, to which were referred all the 
resolutions or suggestions upon the subject submitted to the 
Conference, reported against that plan of Suffragan Bishops. 
The committee reported that there are grave embarrassments 
attending each and all proposed methods for the accom- 
plishment of the work. The committee believed that the 
ecclesiastical unity should not be broken, that for the truest 
welfare of all mankind there could be but one fold and one 
chief Shepherd for all the people in any field of ecclesiastical 
designation. The report went on to say: 

* * * “ But your committee is of opinion that because of the peculiarity of 
the relations of the two races one to the other in our country, because of their 
history in the past, and the hopes of the future, there is needed special legisla- 


tion, appointing special agency and methods for the ingathering of these 
wandering sheep into the fold of Christ.” 


The committee thereupon submitted a draft of a Canon to 
be presented to the approaching General Conyention, (1) 
authorizing the Bishop and Convention in any Diocese to 
constitute the colored population into a special missionary 
organization under the charge of the Bishop; (2) providing 
an Advisory Board of two or more Presbyters and two or more 
laymen—presumably from the context to be white persons 
—to assist the Bishop in this work; (3) authorizing the Bishop 
to appoint two or more Presbyters as Archdeacons—again pre- 
sumably white persons—to perform such duties asthe Bishop 


11 


may assign, and by authority of the Bishop to convene the 
clergy and laity of such missionary organizations in conven- 
tion for the purpose of furthering its work ; (4.) requiring the 
Bishop to report to the General Convention the proceedings 
and the state of the Church in such missionary organizations; 
and (5) providing that congregations organized under the pro- 
visions of the proposed Canon, and ministers exercising 
their functions within such special missionary organization 
may be received into union with the Convention of the Diocese on 
such terms and by such process as are provided by the said 
Diocesan Convention ; that until such reception into union with 
the Convention shall have been accomplished, it shall suffice if the 
names of the clergy in such missionary organization shall appear 
on a separate list, to be delivered to the Secretary of the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies, as containing all the names of the 
ministers of the churches in the special missionary organizations, 
and that they be not placed on the Diocesan list as the basis of 
determining the Diocesan ratio of contingent expenses.” 

On the committee which made this report were the Rev. A. 
Toomer Porter, D. D., and the Hon. Charles Richardson 
Miles, of South Carolina. 

We publish as an appendix “ B,” a letter from the Hon. 
C. G. Memminger to the Right Rev. Bishop Howe, written 
two years before, 28th September, 1881, embodying the 
same suggestion as those contained in this action of the 
Sewanee Conference. : 

The report was adopted, the Bishop of Alabama alone 
dissenting. Another committee was appointed to lay the 
proceedings of the Conference before the General Convention, 
of which committee the Bishop of South Carolina was the 
chairman. 

This Conferénce, it will be observed, was practically a 
clerical Conference. The laymen of this Diocese were so 
fortunate as to be represented by one who truly and ably 
represented their views. But they had no choice in selecting 
him. Out of the forty-one members of the Conference there 
were thirteen Bishops, seventeen clergymen and but eleven 
laymen. This expression of opinion then was, we may say, a 


12 
fair representation of clerical opinion. Here, then, we have 
another distinct and almost unanimous declaration of the 
clergy, that the peculiar relations of the two races need special 
legislation and special agencies; and they propose to have 
special missionary organizations for the cflored people, leay- 
ing it to each Diocese to provide as it shall choose whether 
the congregations of these people shall be received into their 
Convention, and that until they are so received the 
clergy officiating in these missionary organizations shall not 
be returned to the general Convention on the list of the 
clergy of the Diocese, but on a separate list. 

Are laymen to be blamed for having the same opinion 
still, and for still objecting to these people being forced into 
their Conventions in 1887, when the clergy themselves 
thought in 1883 that they should be in an organization 
by themselves? 


CONVENTION OF 1885. 


Nothing came of the Sewanee Conference. The General 
Convention took no action upon the recommendations. The 
House of Bishops, it was understood, approved of the Canon 
proposed by the Sewanee Conference, but it was not acted 
upon. And matters so rested in this Diocese until 1885. 

At the Convention held in Columbia in that year the sub- 
ject as to the admission of the colored element unfortunately 
came up in another form, and connected with another ques- 
tion of scarcely less importance, involving the organization of 
the Convention itself, and renewing in this Diocese a contro- 
versy between the Clerical and Lay Orders which has agi- 
tated other Dioceses in which that of the negro controversy 
has never arisen. It arose in this wise: 

The list of the clergy having been laid before the Conven- 
tion by the Bishop, it was referred to a committee under See- 
tion IV, Canon VIII. Upon the report of the committee a 
resolution was offered by a Lay Delegate that the report of the 
Committee on the Credentials of Clergymen be amended by 
striking out the names of two persons so reported, and that 


13 


the question of their eligibility be referred to a Committee of 
Five—two clergymen and three laymen—to be appointed by 
the Chair, to report to the next Convention whether or no 
any other than white delegates have a legal and constitu- 
tional right to be¢admitted to membership of the Conven- 
tion of the Diocese of South Carolina. After much discus- 
sion and some attempts to amend, the vote on the original 
resolution was taken by Orders on the second day and was 
defeated—two of the clergy voting for the resolution and 
nineteen against it, and eighteen of the parishes for and nine 
against it. | 

On the morning of the third day a Lay Member moved to 
take up the report of the Committee on the List of the 
Clergy. The Chair decided that the motion was out of 
order. An appeal from the Chair was taken, and the Chair 
announced that the decision was sustained, and thereupon 
ruled that the two clergymen whose right to seats in the 
Convention had been questioned were entitled to their seats. 

On the next day a protest was presented by a number of 
clergymen and lay delegates against the action of the Con- 
vention in refusing to consider a motion to adopt the report 
of the Committee on the Credentials of the Clergy, as un- 
parliamentary and illegal, and as drawing into question the 
very organization of the Convention itself. And they fur- 
ther protested against the position which had been an- 
nounced by the President, and acted upon practically by 
the Convention, that, by virtue of their names being on the 
Bishop’s list and reported upon by the Committee on Cre- 
dentials, certain persons who had been admitted to Holy 
Orders, to wit: Messrs. H. C. Bishop and Thos. G. Harper, 
are entitled toand do occupy seats in this Convention. And 
they further protested against the action of the Convention 
in affirming that, under our Constitution and laws, persons 
of color, and not belonging to the white race, are entitled 
to seats upon the floor of this Convention and to participa- 
tion in the government of the Church in this Diocese. 

The protest was duly entered upon the Journal of the 
Convention. 


14 


PROVISIONS OF THE CANONS AS TO ORGANIZATION. 


To understand the question which thus arose in Columbia 
as to the organization of the Conyention we must refer to 
the following provisions of Canon VIII. , 


2III. When the Convention shall have been called to order the 
Secretary shall proceed to call the names of the Clergy and then of 
Parishes and Deputies; after which, ifa quorum be found present, 
the President shall declare the Convention duly organized; provided 
that no Deputy whose seat may be contested shall have place on his 
list. 

21V. Two Committees on Credentials shall then be appointed, the 
first consisting of three Clergymen to whom the roll of Clergy shall be 
referred; the other of three Laymen to whom shall be referred the roll 
of Deputies together with the certificate of their appointment, and the 
list of the Treasurer required by Canon X, Section II. And these Com- 
mittees shall examine forthwith and report to the Convention upon the 
lists so referred; the latter specifying in their report which Parishes are 
entitled to all the privileges of the Convention, and which are by 
Article VIII of the Constitution debarred from voting until admitted 
by a vote of the Convention. Should the Committee have considered 
any certificates unsatisfactory these shall be taken up and the question 
of their sufficiency settled. 


It will be observed that if a quorum shall be found 
present on the call of the names of the Clergy and of the 
Parishes and Deputies, the President, it is provided, shall 
declare the Convention duly organized. But we must not 
suppose that this organization is all that is necessary before 
proceeding to business. An important step has yet to be 
taken. Two Committees on Credentials are to be appointed, 
one for the Clergy, and another for the Lay Deputies. As 
Mr. Cushing in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice ob- 
serves, “ in all deliberative assemblies, the members of which 
are chosen or appointed to represent others, it is necessary 
before proceeding to business to ascertain who are duly 
elected and returned as members; in order not only that 
no person may be admitted to participate in the proceed- 
ings who is not regularly authorized to do so, but also that 
a list of the members may be made for the use of the 
assembly and its officers.” He adds: “ The proper time for 


- 
2 


15 


the investigation is after the temporary and before the per- 
manent organization, or when the assembly is permanently 
organized in the first instance before it proceeds to the transaction 
of any other business ; and the most convenient mode of con- 
ducting it is by the appointment of a Committee to receive 
and report upon the credentials of the members.” 

As the Bishop is ex-officio the presiding officer, and no 
change is therefore made from a temporary to a permanent 
organization, the Canon provides that if a quorum is found 
present on a call of the Clergy and of the Parishes and 
Deputies, the President (i. e. the Bishop) shall declare the 
Convention duly organized. 

Much stress has been laid upon the use of these words, 
“duly organized,” as indicating that nothing further is 
necessary to perfect its organization so as to authorize it to 
proceed to business; but not only is it from the very nature 
of things necessary, as Mr. Cushing says, in all deliberative 
assemblies, the members of which are chosen to represent 
others, to ascertain before proceeding to business who are 
entitled to seats, but the Canons expressly provide that when 
the President has declared the Convention organized, two 
committees shall be appointed, one toexamine the List of the 
Clergy, and another to examine that ofthe Laity (Canon VIZJ), 

-and that if any question be made the right of any clergy- 
man shall be determined by the Convention itself (Canon J), 
provided that no deputy whose seat may be contested shall 
have place on the Secretary’s list (Canon VIII). Is it not 

_ the duty of the Convention, before it proceeds to business, 

to dispose of such questions relating to its organization ? 

Suppose that on some question of interest the Convention 

should be nearly equally divided, and that with the exclusion 
of certain clergymen whose seats were contested, it would 
be carried in one way, or, with their presence, it would be 
carried in the other, would it be proper or competent to 
proceed to this business before acting upon the report of the 

Committee ? Or would it be any more proper or competent 

to pass such a measure by the vote of a clergyman whose 


16 


seat was contested, without allowing the report of the Com- 
mittee to be heard and acted upon ? 

If a doubt on this point could be entertained, the Canon 
again settles it. Canon VIII, after directing the appoint- 
ment of these committees, to whom the respective lists shall 
be referred, provides in explicit terms, “ and these committees 
severally shall examine forthwith and report to the Convention 
upon the lists so referred.” It surely will not be questioned 
that wh en a matter is once referred to a committee it can 
only be dealt with by the body referring it, by acting upon 
the report of the committee (Cushing’s Legislative Assem- 
blies, §1388), or by discharging the committee and resuming 
control of the subject. (Ibid, §1989). But the latter course, in 
this instance, cannot be adopted, because the referenceto the 
committees are not by order of the Convention, but by 
Canon, which controls the Convention itself. The only 
course, therefore, is to act upon the report, and until the 
report is received and acted upon the Convention cannot 
proceed to business. 

Observe, the committees are to examine forthwith and re- 
port. Does not this clearly indicate that the examination 
and report is to precede any other business? 

But, it is urged, that it has not been the practice of the 
Convention for years past to do anything more than appoint 
the committees ; that it has never waited for or taken action 
upon their reports. This is the old plea of communis error 
facit jus, an argument which Lord Kenyon tells us that 
another learned judge treated with indignation, and adds: 
“T perfectly well recollect that learned judge’s saying that 
he hoped he should never hear that rule insisted upon to set 
up a misconception of the law in destruction of the law. Ishould 
have disdained,” he continues, “ to say anything on this po- 
sition unless it had received the appearance of some counte- 
nance in the eases I have mentioned, and in the discussion 
of this case.” 

Let us then look into this practice and see how old it is, for 
the very first requisite of the validity of a practice or cus- 
tom is its antiquity. If one can show the beginning of a 


17 


custom or practice, it must rest on its merits, not on its ex- 
istence as a custom. If one can show when a custom com- 
menced, those who would maintain it must show it was 
properly commenced. For this reason lawyers, since the 
time of Coke, have held that no custom can prevail against 
an express act of Parliament; and, for the same reason, 
churchmen must equally hold that no practice can prevail 
against an express provision of a Canon, or render such a pro- 
vision nugatory. 

Prior to the revision of the Canons in 1872-75, the only 
canonical provision in regard to the Convention was con- 
tained in a Canon then numbered III, and which in the re- 
vision was made Canon I. 

The provision in the old Canon I that the List of the 
Clergy should be referred to a Committee of Three Clergy- 
men is transferred to Section IV of Canon VIII in the re- 
vision, with only such changes of phraseology as are necessary 
to its application to the two Committees—one on the List of 
the Clergy and another on that of the Laity. In the old 
Canon the list was to be referred to a committee— 


“ Who shall forthwith consider and report who of the clergy on said 
list are entitled to all the privileges of the Convention, and who are en- 
titled to seats only.” 


In the revised Canon VIII it is provided— 


“And these two committees shall examine forthwith and report upon 
the lists so referred,” &c. 


Now let us see what the practice was under the old Canon. 
In the Journal of the Convention of 1867 we read, that after 
a brief interval, upon the conclusion of the services the 
Convention was called to order by the Bishop; and the 
Journal continues: 


“The Roll of the Clergy was then called by the Secretary, and the 
following answered to their names, viz; ” 
2 


18 
Here follows the list of those who answered: 


“The Roll of the Parishes and Churches entitled to representation 
was then called, and the following answered, viz: ” 


_ Here follows the list of those who answered: 


“The List of the Clergy was referred to a Committee, consisting of 
the Rey. Messrs. P. Trapier, J. H. Cornish and W. B. W. Howe, and the 
Certificates of the Lay Deputies to a Committee, a of Messrs. 
W. T. Wragg, F. P. Elford and J. J. P. Smith. 

“These Committees reported severally as follows: 

“The Committee onthe List of the Clergy respectfully tle | That 
the following Clergymen are entitled to all the privileges of oe 
of the Convention, viz: (Here follow the names.) 

“2d. The following are entitled to seats and a voice, but not to a is, 
viz: (Here follow the names.) 

“The Committee on Certificates of Lay Deputies report: That the 
following Deputies are entitled to seats in the Seventy-seventh Annual 
Convention of this Diocese, viz: (Here follow the names.) 

“ These reports being received, the names of Deputies were called, and 
thirty-six found present, whose names are marked thus (7). 

“A quorum of both Orders being present, the President declared the Con- 
vention duly organized.” 


This exact formula of minutes is found in the Journals 
of the Convention for the years, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 
1872, and 1873. It will be observed that, in each of these 
years, the Convention was not declared organized until the 
reports were received—and their reception without question 
was their confirmation (Cushing); nor was it declared 
organized until it was ascertained that a quorum of those 
so reported was present. The custom relied on, therefore, 
must have arisen since 1873. 

In 1871, a Committee had been appointed to revise the 
Canons. This Committee reported: Canon 1, “ Of the Clergy,” 
as it now reads down to and including the sentence : “ And 
such List shall be laid before the Convention immediately 
after it shall have been called to order on the first day of 
meeting, and the names called therefrom,” and the Report 
added this provision : 


“ And until otherwise ordered by the Convention, it shall be received as the 
Roll of the Convention.” 


19 


It appears from the Journal of 1873, and its Appendix, 
VIII, B, that this Canon was adopted in this form at that 
Convention—doubtless incautiously, as will thus appear. 

In 1874 the Roll of Clergy and List of Deputies having 
been called and the lists referred to the respective commit- 
tees, before their report, the journal records: 


“A quorum of both orders being present, the Convention was 


declared duly organized.’y 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 


Question was made whether the Convention could be organized, 
that is, whether the old ‘ Rule of Order’ or the Canons adopted by the 
last Convention should direct the mode of procedure. After consid- 
erable discussion, Mr. John Philips offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That this body being duly organized, do proceed to 
business. 

After further discussion, Mr. W. D. Porter offered the following 
substitute for the above, which was accepted by the mover, viz: 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the President 
declare the Convention organized. 

The question being put, it was adopted, and the Convention declared 
duly organized.” 


This action was taken, it will be observed, under the 
provision of the Canon as it then stood, which directed that 
until otherwise ordered by the Convention, the List of the 
Clergy presented by the Bishop or Standing Committee 
should be received as the roll of the Convention. But the 
Convention proceeded at once to rectify this mistake into 
which it had fallen. On the third day we read in the 
Journal (1874): 


“Mr. McCrady offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That Canons I, II, IIT 1V, of the new series be referred to 
the Committee on the Constitution and Canons to inquire and report 
whether there be any inconsistency between them and the Constitu- 
tion, and if found to be inconsistent, that the said Canons be remodeled 
by them so as to be brought into consistency with the Constitution. 

Which was adopted,” 


In the journal of the next year (1875) we read, page 23: 


“The Committee on the Constitution and Canons presented their 
report. (See Appendix IV.) 
On motion of Mr. W. A. Pringle, 


20 


Resolved, That the Canons as reported by the Committee be taken up 
in a body and adopted as the Canons of the Diocese.” 


Turning to Appendix IV, page 64, we find the report of 
1872 republished, with a note by the Secretary, as follows: 


“In 1874 these Canons were referred. back to the Committee, who 
presented to the Convention the following report : 

“The Committee on the Constitution a»d Canons to whom Canons 
I, II, III and IV were referred by the las? Convention (p. 26) to in- 
quire and report whether there be any inconsistency between them and 
the Constitution, and if so, to remodel them 

Respectfully report, that in discharging the duty assigned them they 
have taken occasion carefully to revise the entire report submitted by 
them to the Convention in 1872, (see Journal, page 128),and ask leave 
to propose sundry amendments as well as to the portion of that report 
which has been acted upon as that yet to be considered. 

These amendments are embodied in the following resolutions : 


N. B.—These resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution 
having been all concurred in, and the whole body of the Canons 
adopted, instead of printing the report as handed in, the original 
report here follows as amended by them.” 


Then follow the Constitution and Canons, with this note 
by the Secretary : 


“These Canons having been adopted by the Convention are now 
the Canons of this Diocese.” 


On examining Canon I, as then amended and adopted by 
the Convention, we find that the clause, 


“And until otherwise ordered by the Conventionit (the Clergy List) 
shall be received as the Roll of the Convention,” 


was stricken out and the provision as it now stands in the 
Canon was adopted, to wit: 


* * * “And it (the Clergy’s List) shall be taken as presumptive 
evidence of the privilege of clergymen in the Convention. Provided, 
that if questions be made, the right of any clergyman shall be de- 
termined according to the provision of the Constitution itself, whether 
his name be inserted in the list aforesaid or not.” 


21 


Here then was the most decisive, positive, and explicit 
action by Canon on the very point. The Convention has 
_ expressly refused to allow the Clergy List to be received as 

the Roll of the Convention ; and by a unanimous vote—not 
merely the two-thirds required to change the Canon which 
had been incautiously adopted—ordained instead that 
the list should be only presumptive evidence subject to question, 
and if question made, such question to be determined by 
the Convention itself’ according to the provisions of the 
Constitution, to wit: by a vote by orders. Is there, can there 
be room for question after this of the right to question the 
List of the Clergy and to demand a vote by orders upon it? 


CONVENTION OF 1886. 


The next year, 1586, the Convention met at St. Luke’s, 
Charleston, on the 12th May, and the List of the Clergy and 
Lay Delegates having been referred to the appropriate com- 
mittees, as required by the Canon, the President stated that 
the Convention was duly organized, and that the first busi- 
ness in order was the election of a Secretary. Thereupon a 
lay delegate raised the point of order that the Convention 
was not organized for the transaction of business until the 
reports of the Committees on Credentials, clerical and lay, 
had been received and acted on. 

The discussion on this.point of order, involving the 
organization of the Convention went on all of the first day, 
and during its continuance on the second day, the Com- 
mittee on Credentials having reported on the List of the 
Clergy, a motion was made that the reports be confirmed, ' 
there being no objectionable name upon it, as there was no 
colored clergyman in the Diocese that year. The President 
ruled the motion out of order, and upon an appeal from the 
ruling, the debate on the question as to the due organiza- 
tion of the Convention was renewed and carried on to the 
third day. Upon its close, the President—i. e., the Bishop 
presiding—thus fairly stated the question before the Con- 
vention. He said: 


22 


“The house was confined entirely to the question of the adoption or 
rejection of the report of the committee on the clerical list. On that 
committee’s report a motion was made to adoptit. The Chair ruled 
such adoption out of order, thereupon an appeal was taken. The ap- 
peal has been discussed, and the question is about to be put. The real 
question, however, is not shall the appeal be sustained, but shall the 
decision of the Chair stand as the decision of the Convention ?” 


A vote on this appeal was taken by orders and resulted as 
follows: Clergy—yeas, 25;. nays, 4; Parishes—yeas, 5; 
nays, 25 ; divided, 1. 

The president recognized the legal effect of the vote 
against his decision as binding upon the chair, and pro- 
ceeded to put the question upon the adoption of the report 
of the Committee on the Clergy List, though announcing that 
he himself would vote against its adoption by way of protest. 
The report was not confirmed. 

The Convention was, however, finally organized by the 
almost unanimous adoption of a resolution avowedly framed 
so as to commit neither party to the struggle, which had 
already lost three out of the four days of the Convention. 
It was as follows: 


‘* Resolved, That the clergymen whose names were referred to the 
Committee on the Clergy List be declared entitled to all the privileges 
of the Convention according to the classification of the Committee.” 


QUESTION AS TO THE INHERENT RiGHT oF CLERGYMEN TO 
SEATS IN THE CONVENTION. 


The question which had thus divided the two Conyen- 
tions (of 1885 and 1886) immediately preceding the last, 
although doubtless suggested and made of immediate 
importance by the further question as to the right of any 
other but white clergymen to seats in our Convention, is alto- 
gether independent of it, and would have been insisted upon 
by us just as earnestly had it been raised on any other occasion. 
It is, as we say, not a new question, nor is it confined to our 
Diocese. Were the question of the status of colored clergy- 
men eliminated from the discussion to-morrow, laymen 


23 


cannot afford to give up that as to the organization of the 
Convention itself. It is simply the question of the right of 
laymen to judge and determine for themselves as to the 
fact whether or not the persons named upon the Clergy List 
are qualified under the Constitution to seats in the Conven- 
tion, just as they admit the right of the clergy to pass upon 
that of the lay delegates. 

This subject has agitated other Dioceses, among them, 
New Jersey, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 

The High Church party in Connecticut, under the lead 
of Dr., afterwards Bishop Jarvis, claimed as our clergymen 
do now, that the List of the Clergy presented to a 
Convention was ipso facto conclusive, under the same idea, 
if not so broadly expressed, as declared by one of ourclergy- 
men in Columbia in 1885, to wit: that “ he stood on the floor 
of the Convention as a priest of God;” or, as expressed by 
another at the late Convention, that “the very fact that Mr. 
Pollard’s name is on the Bishop’s roll of clergymen consti- 
tutes him a member of this Convention” Dr. Jarvis made 
an elaborate report in favor of this view. But the church- 
men of Connecticut would have none of it, and though the 
proposed amendment to the Constitution was adopted that 
year, it was immediately repealed the next. 

Our clergymen generally assyme that to be so in our case 
in the very nature of things which Dr Jarvis, high church- 
man as he was, only sought to ingraft by amendment on 
the Constitution of Connecticut. ¢ 

The late Judge Hoffman, of New York, who was a staunch 
supporter of Episcopal prerogative; in his work on Canon 
law in the American Church, devotes some space to this 
discussion and thus states his views: 


* * x “When a Bishop becomes a party to a compact by which a 
Convention shall be found to be composed of clergymen, and in which 
the qualifications of those to be admitted as members are stated, that 
assent involves an assent that the Convention shall judge of the pos- 
session of those qualifications. There must be a positive enactment to 
avoid the consequence. The provisions in the two Dioceses named 
(Connecticut and New Jersey) do not amount to such an enactment. 
The case is very distinguishable from that elsewhere discussed as to the 


24 


right of a Bishop as presiding officer upon questions of order. The 
Bishops never relinquished the right of presidency. The Constitutions 
always recognize, do not confer, that right and that right, it is consid- 
ered, involves the right of determination where there is no different 
regulation. But here the Bishop agrees to the establishment and composition 
of a body to which, presumptively, the privilege attaches of deciding upon its 
member’s qualifications. There should be an express denial of the power, or 
an express bestowal of it elsewhere to avoid the conclusion.” 


Some ten years ago the same question was revived in 
Massachusetts by an attempt to amend the Constitution so 
as to provide that the right of voting in Convention should 
not be restricted to such clergy as were actually and 
canonically employed in certain settled duties, and to 
allow all clergy employed or unemployed to yote by virtue 
of their orders. This was advocated by Dr. Vinton, Dr. 
Burgess and others, and was opposed by the Rey. Dr. 
Huntington, Mr Causten Brown and Mr. Richard H. 
Dana, Jr. Dr. Vinton urged the claim which is now set up 
in this Diocese that a seat and vote in the Convention was a 
right inherent in the office of the clergyman; that they 
sat and should vote as representatives of their order while 
the lay deputies sat to represent their parishes. It was 
responded that there was no such right to sit and vote in a 
Church Synod inherent in the clerical character as such ; 
that it had not been enjoyed in other ages and was not 
now theirs in other portions of the Church; that it was a 
privilege bestowed on them by statute enactment as a correla- 
tive of certain setvices which they were rendering to the 
Church. Dr. Vinton’s proposed amendment to the Con- 
stitution was defeated by a fair majority, even of the clergy. 

The laymen in Massachusetts were right in asserting that 
there was no such right to sit and yote in any Convention 
inherent in the clerical character, but that when enjoyed 
it was a privilege bestowed by some positive enactment. No 
such right is enjoyed by the clergy of the Church of Eng- 
land (our Mother Church) in the convocations of Can- 
terbury and York. The clergymen who sit in those conyo- 
cations are elected as proctors or representatives by such 
clergymen only as themselves possess certain property quali- 


OO 


25 
‘ 


fications in their offices. Their qualification is one of 
property rather than of orders. See Burns Ecclesiastical Law ; 
Blackstone, Jacobi’s Law Dictionary; Encyclopedia Britannica, Ith 
Edition, Title Convocation. We venture to assert that no in- 
stance in the history of the Church can be found in which 
clergymen have had seats in any legislative synod or council 
of the Church by virtue simply of their orders. 

So you see, Brethren of the Laity, your delegates who. 
withdrew set forth no new or strange doctrine when they 
maintain the right of the Laity to pass upon the qualifications 
of the clergy whose names are laid before the Convention by 
the Bishop, or by the Standing Committee in his absence. 
Observe we say, “or by the Standing Committee in his ab- 
sence.” For you will recollect that this list, to which a charac- 
ter approaching almost to sanctity is claimed, may after all be 
made up not by the Bishop at all, but by the Standing Com- 
mittee in his absence—a body which can set up no claim to 
apostolic authority. Indeed this list is always made up 
by the Standing Committee on the most important occasion 
on which a Convention can meet—the occasion for the elec- 
tion of a Bishop. 


CONVENTION OF (1887. 


The Convention which met in St. Philip’s Church on the 
12th May last, had before it the now inevitable question 
which had agitated the two previous, to wit: that of its or- 
ganization ; but unlike that of 1886, it had the question not 
asa matter of principle only, but with it was involved the 
underlying question of the admission of colored clergymen 
into our councils. 

Upon assembling, the Secretary of the last Convention hay- 
ing called the rolls and ascertained that ten clergymen were 
present and ten parishes represented, the President, using the 
formula prescribed by the Canon, announced that the Con- 
vention was duly organized, and appointed the Committees 
on the Credentials of the Clergy and Lay Deputies. 

The Bishop then announced that while these committees 


26 


were out he would read his Annual Address, and proceeded . 
to do so. Upon its conclusion, the Committee on the Cre- 
dentials of the Clergy submitted their report approving the 
list as presented by the Bishop, including the name of a col- 
ored clergyman in the list of those entitled to seats, but not 
to votes. 

Upon this a Lay Delegate moved to confirm the report, 
and another to amend it by striking out the name of the col- 
ored clergyman. The motion to strike out the name of the ~ 
colored clergyman resulted as follows: Clergy, yeas, 3; 
nays, 28; Lay Parishes, yeas, 22; nays, 6; so the motion 
was lost by non-concurrence of orders. 

It was then moved by one of us to divide the ques- 
tion so as to confirm the clergymen reported as entitled 
to seats and votes about whom there was no question. 
This would at once have organized the Convention for 
business, leaving for the present the name of the colored 
clergyman upon the list of those entitled to seats, but not to 
votes, subject to such action as might be taken thereafter. 
This motion to divide the question resulted as follows: 
Clerical, yeas, 5; nays, 21; Lay, yeas,19; nays, 9; divided, 
3; and was consequently lost. 

So, you see, we the laymen were willing, and proposed to 
separate and remove the question of the admission of the 
colored clergymen from that of the organization of the body, 
leaving the former to the action of the Convention after its 
organization ; but that the clergy would not allow us to do so, 
insisting on making their admission a condition of the organiza- 
tion of the Convention itself. 

The question then recurred on the original motion to 
confirm the report of the Committee on the Clergy List, as 
presented by the Bishop. This resulted—clerical, yeas, 
22; nays, 3. Laymen, yeas, 6; nays, 18; divided, 6. So 
the motion to confirm the report was lost. 

The Chair then announced that, notwithstanding the vote 
refusing to confirm the list of the clergy, as reported, “ that 
the Convention is duly organized, and ready for any business that 
may come before it.” 


27 


Thereupon a motion was made by a clerical member in 
reference to the Bishop’s Address. Upon this a point of 
erder was made, that, as the Convention was not as yet 
organized for business, the motion in reference to the Bish- 
op’s Address colulld not be entertained. 

The Chair overruled the point of order, holding that the 
Convention was fully organized for business. From this 
ruling an appeal was taken. The Chair announcing that 
he would receive no further appeals after this, but would go 
on with the regular business, then put the appeal in these 
words: ‘“ Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the sense of the 
House?” 

This question was taken by orders, and the House refused, 
by a divided vote, to sustain the decision of the Chair. The 
vote was as follows: Clergy—yeas, 22; nays, 3. Parishes— 
yeas, 9; nays, 13; divided, 2. 

The Bishop then announced that “there being a non-con- 
currence, the decision of the. Chau had not been sustained,” but 
immediately turned to the Secretary and instructed him to 
proceed to read the Rules of Order, this being the first busi- 
ness, as he said, under the order of business. 

Now we ask, in all soberness and. earnestness, why did 
the Bishop go through the meaningless form of putting the 
question to the House, “ whether his decision should stand,” 
if he had not intended to be bound by the result? If he was 
bound by the action of the Convention in 1886, upon an 
appeal from his decision, washe not likewise bound in 1887? 

An appeal was attempted to be taken from this ruling, 
but as the Bishop had announced he would do, he refused 
to put the appeal to the House. 

Upon this the Lay Delegates from St. Paul’s Parish, Rad- 
cliffeboro’, sent up to the Chair the following paper : 

“The Lay Delegates of St. Paul’s Parish, Radcliffeboro’, finding it im- 
practicable to organize the Convention according to the Constitution 
and the Canons of the Church, deem it wise to withdraw, and hereby 
notify their colleagues of their intention.” 

The Delegates from St. Paul’s were followed by Delegates 
from twenty other parishes. 


28 


The next day the Deputies who had retired from the Con- 
vention met in consultation, and this committee was ap- — 
pointed to prepare this statement. While they were in such 
consultation a committee, waited upon them . and presented 
the following resolution, which the Committee informed 
them had been unanimously adopted : 


“Resolved, This Convention profoundly regrets the action of the Dele- 
gates from certain parishes in withdrawing from the Convention on 
yesterday evening, and affectionately and most earnestly requests their 
brethren to reconsider their action and resume their seats in the bsniz? 
vention. 

“Resolved, That this resolution be presented to our absent biedaead 
by a committee appointed by the Chair.” 


Upon the presentation of this resolution it was asked of 
the committee what had been attempted to be done in our 
absence; and upon learning from them that those remain- 
ing in the Convention had undertaken to transact business, 
to amend the Constitution and to elect a Standing Commit- 
‘tee, turning out from that Committee all members who 
had acted with your Deputies, the following resolution was 
unanimously adopted by us: 


“Resolved, That we accede to the request submitted to us by the com- 
mittee, provided that when we return and resume our seats in the 
Convention, the President of the Convention shall entertain the appeal 
taken by Mr. McCrady yesterday, and shall forthwith put the same to 
the Convention.” 


This condition was refused. 


Upon a careful consideration of the foregoing statement 
we think our brethren of the Laity will agree with us that 
there was indeed no other course left open to us but to 
withdraw. 

The Bishop had ruled—notwithstanding that the Con- 
vention had refused to confirm the report of the Committee 
on the Clergy List—that the Convention was duly organ- 
ized for business. An appeal had been taken, and upon this 
appeal, which he himself correctly put in these words: 


29 


“ Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the sense of the house ?” 
a vote of the house had been taken, the result of which 
he himself announced in these words: “There being a non- 
concurrence, the. decision of the Chair has not been sustained.” 
Here, then, we had his own announcement, pvt in the for- 
mula which at the Convention held last year he had de- 
clared that he had adopted upon the advice of parliamenta- 
rians, whom he had consulted, that the decision had not 
been sustained by the body to which he had put it. And 
yet, with this express and announced refusal of the Conven- 
tion to sustain his ruling, the Bishop nevertheless assumed 
to decide against the action of the Convention itself, and by 
his own authority to determine that the Convention was 
fully organized for business ! 

For the Church’s sake it was the greater pity, too, that 
the Bishop should thus have assumed to decide the ques- 
tion as to the organization of the Convention by his — 
mere will, for at that time, when he refused to hear any 
other appeal in regard to it, the delegate who made the ap- 
peal had in his hand a proposition looking to peace, which 
had been agreed upon by parties on both sides, clergymen 
and laymen, as a fair basis of settlement, at least for the 
time. 

What were we to do? 

But one of four alternative courses was possible: 

1. To submit. To abandon all right of the Laity to an 
opinion upon the organization of the Convention, and to 
recognize the action of those sustaining the Bishop, what- 
ever it might be, on any question, notwithstanding that 
upon a vote the Convention itself had in effect declared 
that it was not organized. 

2. To protest against the action of the Bishop, and remain. 

3. To remain and, by means of parliamentary expedients, 
to obstruct the business—forcing a divided vote on every 
question—or 

4. To withdraw with dignity and refuse to recognize any 
further action of those who remained under the Bishop’s 
Truling. 


30 


We do not suppose that our brethren of the Laity would 
have had us to take the first course and thus to abandon, not 
only our own, but their rights as well. We had tried the 
second two years ago, and it had produced no results. The 
third would have given rise to unseemly conduct and strug- 
gle, and would have, in some measure at least, justified the 
use of the expression “ filibustering,” with which our oppo- 
nents had already endeavored to prejudice the parliamen- 
tary struggle we had made. We saw no course consistent 
with our own dignity and your rights but to withdraw, and 
refuse to recognize any action that those who remained 
might take. : 

As we have said before, had the quéstion as to the right 
of colored persons in our Convention been entirely elimi- 
nated, we could not have given up the assertion of the right 
of the Laity to pass upon the qualifications of the Clergy- 
men on the Lists laid before the Convention by the Bishop, 
or Standing Committee—any more than the Churehmen in 
Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, and other Dio- 
ceses, who have had likewise to insist upon it, though there 
was no such underlying question of present moment as with 
us. But with us there was the “ burning” or “festering” 
question, as it has been at different times designated, behind, 
forcing itself upon us, and demanding that we should give 
up no barrier against the intrusion of the colored race into 
our councils. From the stand taken by the Bishop, sup-. 
ported by a large majority of the Clergymen, if we gave up 
this question as to the proper organization of the Conyen- 
tion, we had no longer any means of resisting the seating 
colored Clergy in our Conventions, though we believe such 
action unconstitutional, and in itself dangerous in the 
extreme to the Church. 


CoLoRED CLERGYMEN NOT CONTEMPLATED IN oUR Con- 
STITUTION. 


We say that we believe the seating of colored clergymen 
to be unconstitional. The Constitution, as we have seen, 
provides, Article III, Section 1, “ The Convention shall be com- 
posed of clergymen and laymen.” 


ol 


What clergymen and what laymen are here meant ? 

To answer this we must ascertain who the framers of the 
Constitution intended to designate, and this is but resorting 
to the old and familiar legal rule, which is thus expressed 
by Mr. Justice Story. He says “that the first and funda- 
mental rule in relation to the interpretation of all instru- 
ments applies to constitutions, that is, to construe them 
according to the sense of the terms and ‘the intentions of 
of the parties.” Andas held in the great “ woman’s right’s 
case” (Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162,) by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, Chief Justice Waite delivering 
the opinion of the Court, we must ascertain what the terms 
meant at the time when they were used, and the sense in which 
they were then used, and must adopt that meaning, and nota 
meaning which the words may have subsequently received. 
So in deciding who were the “ cifizens” of the United States 
whose privileges or immunities in question were not to be 
abridged, the Court went back to ascertain whom the framers 
of the Constitution of the United States had in view at the 
time they used the term, and deciding that the term 
“citizen” as used and understood when the Constitution was 
adopted did not at that time, and in the sense in which it 
was then used, include females, they held it could not 
be now enlarged to include them. 

A familiar illustration of the justness of this rule is to be 
found in our Common Prayer, where, in the collect for the 
17th Sunday after Trinity, we pray “that Thy grace may 
always prevent and follow us.” Do we mean when we use 
this prayer to ask the Lord in the present acceptance of the 
word “prevent” that He would “ hinder,” “ obstruct,” 
“impede” or “thwart” us? or do we not mean Him to 
understand us as using the word in the old sense,“ to go 
before us as a benefactor, to anticipate our wants and 
desires ?” 

So, in construing our Church Constitution, we must go 
back and put ourselves in the place of those who wrote and 
adopted it, and ask what did they then mean? 

And can any one doubt whom they then meant by the term 


we 


32 


clergymen? Will any one maintain that it ever entered 
into the minds of the framers of our Constitution that these 
terms applied to any but those of the white race? 

At the time of the adoption of these words in the Consti- 
tution of the Diocese, slavery existed in the State, and, 
indeed, the cétored race was subject to slavery in every 
State in the Union except Vermont, and perhaps, as it is 
claimed, Massachusetts. The framers of the Constitution 
could not, therefore, have contemplated that these terms 
applied to the colored race. But it was not only because of 
their slavery that colored persons were not contemplated by 
the framers of our Diocesan Constitutions as coming under 
the general terms used in these instruments. It was 
because the framers of these Constitutions regarded them- 
selves as providing for the government of a homogeneous © 
Church—a race Church—a Church of white people—Anglo- 
Saxon—the same people as those of the Church of England. 

We say this without fear of refutation, for this is the first 
attempt in the history of the Church to make a Church 
other than a National Church—that is the Church of a race. 
Since the time when Paul and Barfiabus parted asunder at 
Antioch, on a race question, we find the Church everywhere 
a race Church. The three great divisions of the Church 
to-day are the Latin, the Greek and the Anglo-Saxon. — 

We have a singular illustration of this in the Church in 
New York. An Act for the gradual emancipation of slaves 
was passed by the State of New York in 1799, by the opera- 
tion of which the census of 1840 showed that all but four 
negroes had been freed. In March, 1819, that is, twenty 
years after the passage of the act, Bishop Hobart applied to 
the Standing Committee of that Diocese for advice in 
relation to the admission of a colored person as a candidate 
for holy orders, upon which the Committee unanimously 
advised his admission upon the distinct understanding that 
in the event of his being admitted to orders, he should not 
“be entitled to a seat in the Convention, nor should the 
congregation of which he may have charge be represented 
therein.” It is manifest from this that neither Bishop Ho- 


33 


bart nor his Standing Committee imagined that the fact of 
emancipation had given the colored race a constitutional 
right to a seat in the Convention. 

But the expediency of admitting a colored congrega- 
tion to representation was again discussed in 1846, when 
it may be presumed that the last four slaves had been 
emancipated by death if not otherwise, and that the con- 
sideration of slavery was absolutely at an end. In this 
year, 1846, the subject of the admission of St. Philip’s 
and other colored congregations into representation in the 
Convention of the Diocese of New York was referred toa 
committee, consisting of William H. Harrison, Reubin 
Sherwood and J. C. Spencer, who made an elaborate report, 
a copy of which is here added as an appendix ; recommend- 
ing that neither St.Philip’s nor any other colored congrega- 
tion be admitted into union with the Convention. This 
report was received, and its recommendation was adopted. 

The question was again renewed in 1850, when the Con- 
vention in New York again refused, in spite of Mr. John 
Jay’s efforts in their behalf, to admit colored delegates. 
Here then we have a practical construction cotemporaneous 
with emancipation in New York, and subsequently adhered 
to. Such construction is always regarded the highest 
authority by both constitutional lawyers and canonists. 

Bishop Hobart and the Convention in New York were 
not alone in this regard. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, 
took exactly the same course, and admitted a colored person, 
Absalom Jones, to Holy Orders on the distinct understand- 
ing that neither he nor the Parish of St. Thomas, of which 
he was to be the Rector, should claim seats in the Conven- 
tion ; and the same provision was incorporated in the charter 
of the Church. 

If the admission of colored members, clerical or lay, is 
regarded as mere matter of expediency, then of course these 
instances have only the weight of example. Butif it is 
regarded as a matter of principle and right they have much 
greater force. For if aseat in the Convention is a matter of 
inherent right, it must have been as with matters of faith 

3 


34 


semper eadem. But here we have the venerable Bishop 
Whiteand Bishop Hobart, and the able, learned and Christian 
churchmen of New York and Pennsylvania denying rig: 
in this matter. 


CoNSTITUTION AMENDED BUT Not ApopTEepD In 1876. 


Our opponents would at first pay no attention to this ar- 
gument, but contented themselves with simply answering 
dogmatically that the term “clergymen” included all cler- 
gymen, whether white or colored. But finding that it 
cannot be thus summarily disposed of, they now make the 
point that the Constitution was adopted, or re-adopted, in 
1876, and that as there were colored clergymen at that time, 
that such are now included in the term. In this they are 
mistaken. The Constitution was not adopted, nor re-adopted, 
in 1876—it was simply amended at that time. 

In 1871 the Committee on the Constitution and Canons 
were instructed to examine and revise the Canons, Rules of 
Order and Standing Resolutions. See Journal, p —. 

On the 11th May, 1872, the committee presented their re- 
port, which was adopted. Whereupon the Rey. J. D. Me- 
Collough, from the same committee, offered the following 
resolution : 


“Resolved, That the Constitution of the Church in this Diocese be 
amended in the following particulars, (See Journal 1872, p, 29-21.) 


Then followed the proposed and specified amendments, 
mostly verbal, and none bearing upon the questions in- 
volved in this controversy, none in anywise defining or al- 
luding to the term “ clergymen.” 

The Journal then goes on to record (p. 22): 


“These resolutions were severally considered and were adopted, ex- 
cept the third,” &e. 


35 


The assertion, therefore, now so confidently made, that 
the present Constitution was adopted in 1876, we have 
shown to be historically untrue. It was then simply 
amended in certain specified particulars. 


ERASTIANISM. 


We have been astonished to hear it urged that the change 
in the institutions of the country, whereby these people 
have been allowed to participate in the civil government, 
was binding upon the Church. We did not think that such 
Erastianism was held in this country. We thought here, at 
least, that Church and State were by both the civil and 
ecclesiastical constitutions forever divorced. But if such a 
doctrine is, nevertheless, maintained, we would beg such 
persons as think that the action of the civil government 
binds the Church, to remember that it was never conceived, 
that emancipation itself gave the negroes the right to take 
part in the civil government. Nor were such rights con- 
ferred by the new amendments to the Constitution of the 
United States. The party in power, through the Recon- 
struction measures, compelled the States, by the power of 
the sword, themselves to enact the provisions conferring 
such rights upon the negroes. It was not left to implica- 
tion from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Civil 
rights, rightfully or wrongfully, voluntarily or under com- 
pulsion, were given and conferred by each State by its own 
individual enactment. So if the Bishop and Clergy desire 
to have similar rights conferred in our Church government, 
at must be done by some positive act of the Church itself. Will 
they resort to outside pressure to accomplish this, as was 
done in civil affairs? If they cannot use the sword of State, 
as Erastus would have had them do, will they seek to bring 
down upon us the anathemas of the Northern Church, be- 
cause having experienced the great evil brought upon 
the State by forcing these people into the civil government. 
of the country, we hesitate to bring like trouble into the 
councils of the Church ? 


36 - 


— 


Itis thus apparent that the attempt is being made to change the 
ancient and established order of the Church, not directly by means 
of any positive and affirmative action of the Church itself, but 
indirectly by a mere implication from changes which have taken 
place outside of the Church. 


INTRODUCTION OF COLORED ELEMENT NOT ONLY UNCONSTITU- 
TIONAL BUT DANGEROUS. 


As we have said, we believe the seating of colored 
clergymen in our Conventions is not only unconstitutional 
but in itself dangerous in the extreme. 

And surely in so believing, we have but to refer to the 
Clergy themselves and to cite their own views and to use their 
own expressions. We have but to recall Mr. Prentiss’ reso- 
lution in 1875, asserting that the Convention possesses and 
will exercise the right of excluding from their body dele- 
gates of this class, because they may interrupt the peace of 
the Church and impede the glory of God. We have but to 
recall the resolutions of the Standing Committee, including 
Dr. Pinckney, Dr. Porter and Mr. Johnson, that the diffi- 
culty before us is, that we have to legislate for “two races 
brought together in this Diocese to occupy the same terri- 
tory differing in all those essential characteristics which con- _ 
stitute different peoples, and most especially in Christian 
knowledge and culture ;” “that it would reverse the order 
of missionary operations and even of nature itself and would 
tend to the advantage of neither race, that the race having the 
lesser Christian knowledge and culture should be advanced 
to the position of teachers, and rulers of the other race;” 
“that itis not expedient to invest individuals of the less 
advanced race with official authority over the other race.” 
We have but to cite the language of the report of the Com- 
mittee of the Sewanee Conference, signed by Bishops Green, 
of Mississippi; Gregg, of Texas; Robertson, of Missouri ; 
Lyman, of North Carolina; and Dudley, of Kentucky; and 
Thompson, assistant Bishop of Mississippi; and others 
clergymen and laymen, “ that because of the peculiarity of 


37 


the relations of the two races one to the other in our 
country, because of their history in the past and the hopes 
of the future, there is need of special legislation appointing 
special agency and methods for the ingathering of these 
wandering sheep into the fold of Christ.” We have but to 
refer to their memorial to the General Convention in view 
of these peculiar relations of the two races to organize the 
colored people into separate missionary organizations. 

That our views upon this subject are neither new, singu- 
lar nor strange, will be seen by referring to the report to 
the New York Convention which we have added as an 
appendix to this paper. Say Messrs. Harrison, Sherwood 
and Spencer. 


“When society is unfortunately divided into classes. When some 
are intelligent, refined and elevated in tone and character, and others 
are ignorant, coarse and debased however unjustly, and when such 
prejudice exists between them as to prevent social intercourse on 
equal terms, it would seem inexpedient to encounter such prejudices 
unnecessarily, and to endeavor to compel the one class to associate on 
equal terms in the consultations on the affairs of the Diocese with those 
whom they would not admit to their tables, or into their family circles. 
Nay, whom they would not admit into their pews during public 
worship.” 


At the late General Assembly of the Southern Presbyte- 
rian Church, in which this very question was discussed, as 
the only remaining barrier to the re-union of the Northern 
and Southern branches of that Church, the Rev. Dr. B. M. 
Palmer thus stated the difficulty : 


“You can’t put men side by side as equal presbyters of a court in any 
number, and side by side in the pulpit, and preaching side by side the 
same Gospel, without involving social relations. As long as only two or 
three are there, it makes no difference; but as the thing enlarges its 
proportions, ecclesiastical and spiritual relations in office, draw after them 
social relations and social equality.” 


But we have been assured again and again that these, 
fears, as expressed by Dr. Palmer, that ecclesiastical and’ 
spiritual relations will draw after them social relations and 
social equality, are groundless; that there is no danger 
whatever to any of the social barriers between the races if 


38 - 


we take these people into our councils and churches as our 
equals; that they would but sit and vote and not presume 
upon their professional position to advance their social rela- _ 
tions; and we have been pointed to our sister Dioceses of 
Virginia and North Carolina as exemplifying the assertion. 
Singularly, it happened that at the very time while these 
pledges were being made on the example of the Diocese of 
North Carolina, the colored clergymen in the Convention of 
that Diocese had repudiated any such pledge for them, and 
considering themselves included in a general invitation is- 
sued by the Bishop to the members of his Convention, had 
assumed as of right to enter the household and to partake 
with their white co-members of the Convention of the 
Bishop’s hospitality. Was there no danger in this? Are 
you, Brethren of the Laity, willing to run the risk of it in 
this Diocese ? 

The Rev. Mr. Joyner, who has been one of the most earn- 
est advocates for the admission of colored clergymen into 
our Convention, hastens, it is true, upon the telegraphic an- 
nouncement of the occurrence, emphatically and warmly to 
deny that Bishop Lyman received colored members of the 
Convention at his private residence “ on a footing of perfect 
social equality.” But about this the Rev. Calbraith B. Perry 
takes issue with Mr. Joyner, and is sure that the Bishop did 
not consider the appearance of these colored clergymen as 
an unexpected intrusion, and stoutly maintains that those 
who know Bishop Lyman “will find it hard to believe, 
unless on his own assurance, that he would fail to weleome 
guests whom he invited, for inviting ‘the members of the 
Convention’ he necessarily included them.” Between the 
two, Bishop Lyman is silent. Indeed, what can he say ? 
For surely if these people are proper and fit to be members 
of the Convention, they are fit to be our social guests. 

This is not only the logical, but the actual and_ practical 
result not only in North Carolina, but elsewhere. Read this 
from a Church paper published in the South. “ The Trinity 
Church Bell,” published in Hannibal, Missouri, commenting 
on the trouble in our Diocesan Convention, says: 


‘ 39 


“ The difficulties of race and color which have now for several years 
past so terribly affrighted the ‘ Diocese of Charleston,’ have given no 
alarm or trouble to this portion of the vineyard, and yet Missouri has 
three colored clergymen to South Carolina’s one. Year by year we have 
seen these clerical gentlemen, along with their delegates, present at the 
Bishop's reception, moving amongst the most cultured and refined people of 
St. Louis, and receiving the utmost respect from all. Whether their wives 
were present we donot recall, but they were included and expected in the 
general invitation. We have yet to hear the slightest protest from the most 
fastidious. 

Admit colored clergymen in this Diocese, and will our 

‘Bishop in their turn appoint them to deliver the annual 
sermons at the opening of the Convention, and call upon 
them to take part in the daily opening service? And if he 
will not, what right, we ask, has he so to discriminate 
against them? If they are proper and suitable persons to 
take part in our legislation because they are clergymen, 
why are they not, by the same right, competent to preach to 
us from our pulpits and to pray for us from our chancels. 
But if the Bishop has the right to discriminate against these 
clergymen because of their color whew it comes to preaching 
and praying, have we of the laity not the same—nay,a 
greater right to discriminate against their legislating for us? 

To those who agree with the Rev. Mr. Calbraith Perry 
and The Trinity Church Bell we have nothing to say. To 
all of owr clergy, who we believe would, with the Rev. Mr. 
Joyner, shrink from such results, we appeal to pause before 
they render them inevitable. 


“Contra Munpum.” 


We are told that we are against the world in this matter. 
Against whom? and against what? We are against what, 
we believe, is, in its best, a mere sentimentality—and in its 
worst, and we fear, more general form, a fanatical desire of 
those so circumstanced as not, in any way, to be personally 
affected by its consequences, to have negro social equality 
forced upon us. But the opinion of these dreamers or fanatics, 
in nowise themselves personally concerned in the result, 
should not and cannot affect us. To show us that we are 


40 " 


contra mundum—against all the world—show us that other 
people, situated as we are, differ with us on this subject ; 
and we shall give their example all the weight and au- 
thority due it. But do not cite the opinion of Exeter Hall, 
whose people are in no danger of being overrun by the 
negroes, Whose rights to equality they acknowledge in the 
few sporadic cases which once or twice in a lifetime happen 
to them: Do not cite tous the opinion of Faneuil Hall, 
from whence the crusade on this subject commenced. Show 
us that the English people in India, in Chureh and State, 
recognize no barrier between the races. Show us that the 
people of the North allow negroes in their hotels and places 
of amusement and recreation, Show us that they submit 
to social equality in any instance in which it is likely to 
encroach upon them, and we may consider the example. 

We are not against the world—the world which is cir- 
cumstanced as we are—that world is not a large one. 

It is the world of the Southern States which are cireum- 
stanced as no other people are, or ever have been before ; 
and in this world we are not singular. Inno Chureh 
or denomination of Christians in the South has this effort 
been made to force social equality upon its people but in 
the Conventions of the Episcopal Church. 

It is you, Brethren of the Clergy, who are attempting a 
thing contra mundum—that is, against the world in which 
you live. And in doing so, you are inflicting incalculable 
injury upon your influence in that state of life unto which 
it has pleased God tocall you. Will a few honied- speeches 
from those who have no personal interest in the matter, 
who live and move and have their being under different 
circumstances, compensate you for the loss of your personal 
influence among your own people—your own kith and kin? 

Be careful, let us pray you, that your own opinion is not 
unconsciously influenced by the sword of the conqueror, 
and the subtile influences of wealth and power. 

And after all, was not the same thing said of Athanasius ? 
In the language of Hooker, “ the whole world against Athana- 
sius, and Athanasius against it.’ And about what was the 


41 


whole world then against Athanasius, but about that which 
is now a mere matter of simple fundamental faith? Noah 
was contra mundum but the deluge came notwithstanding. 
Galileo was contra mundum but the earth revolved notwith- 
standing. Let us beware lest if like Galileo we recant— 
unlike him we may not be able to abjure our recantation. 
Let us not concern ourselves so much whether the whole 
world is against us or not as to whether we are right. 


Our Duty to THE CoLoRED PEOPLE. 


We fully recognize that the Church in the Southern 
States has a great duty and responsibility in regard to the 
colored people. We join heartily in the report of the Se- 
wanee Conference on this subject; but we do not believe that 
this duty necessitates or renders advisable our taking these 
people into our Church councils. 

We believe it to be our duty to send and carry the Gospel 
to the colored people ; to urge upon them the Church—our 
Church—and to bring into it as many of them as we can. 
But, as our Bishop says, “the Convention is not the 
Church.” 

It is urged that we cannot expect these people to receive 
the blessings of the Gospel unless we extend to them with 
the ministrations of the Church the right to take part in its 
government. Butif this beso, the same rule should also ap- 
ply to all our missions, and our missionaries in Asia and 
Africa should be commissioned to offer to each of their con- 
verts, upon conversion, the elective franchise and right of 
representation in our Conventions or councils. If the right 
to take part in our Conventions and councils depends upon 
the fact of conversion and connection with the Church by 
baptism, then it must follow that the converted and bap- 
tized savage or barbarian is ¢o instanti so entitled, without 
regard to his education or civilization. If, on the other hand, 
education and civilization are to be considered, then the 
question ceases to be one of Christian right, and lowers it- 
self to one of expediency. Our missionaries are not sent to 


42 


make rulers, but Christians. The blessings of the Gospel and 
the right to rule and govern in the Church are not the same 
thing. 

But we are told we need not concern ourselves; that there 
is no danger of our being overrun by these people; that so 
few will ever come to us that we need not fear them. This 
argument seems to mock at the very idea of any earnest 
missionary work among them. It is worse—it implies a 
want of sincerity, at least, in our efforts to make Christians 
of them. It assumes that our missionary work among them 
will be alla pretence and a sham; that we will preach to 
them without the hope or desire of converting them. 

We believe it to be our duty to carry the Gospel to these 
people, and that we must do so in no half-heartéd manner, 
hoping all the while they will not listen to the Word, lest 
they be converted and become as one of us; and we should, 
therefore, have to admit them to a share in the government 
of the Church. This we believe is to-day a great drawback 
to missions among these people. Clergymen tell us that 
when converted the negroes have the right to come in and 
take part in our Church government, and that they must be 
admitted to our Conventions, and then appeal to us for 
means to convert them, and our people naturally hesitate to 
build up negro churches to overwhelm themselves. 

We fully recognize our duty—our bounden duty—to 
preach the Gospel to these people, but we feel and recognize 
no call upon us to take them into our councils. 

We have seen it stated that Bishop Davis was the author 
of the move for the admission of St. Mark’s into the Conven- 
tion. There is no authority for this statement ; and we are 
satisfied that it isa misapprehension. Indeed we have eyi- 
dence in our possession going to show that while Bishop 
Davis was anxious to afford the colored people all the min- 
istrations of the Church, he never contemplated their admis- 
sion into the Convention. 


43 
SUMMARY OF CAUSES WHICH LED To WITHDRAWAL. 


We have thus, brethren of the laity, laid before you the 

causes which led to our withdrawal from the late Conven- 
tion. We were no seceders from the Church. We left the 
Convention (1) because the Bishop, as. the presiding officer, 
after having put to the body the question of confirming the 
report upon the list of clerical members, and announcing 
that the report was not confirmed by the vote taken, assumed 
to decide that, the Convention was nevertheless organized 
for business; and (2) because, upon an appeal from this 
ruling, he having put the question, ‘‘ Shall the decision of the 
‘chair stand as the judgment of this house ?” and upon the 
vote having been taken, he having thereupon announced 
that the decision of the chair was not sustained, nevertheless 
ruled that the Convention was organized for business; and 
(3) because from this ruling he would allow no appeal. 

It was useless, and would have been undignified and 
unworthy on our part as your representatives had we 
remained ina body whose presiding officer would neither be 
governed by the decision of the body, nor allow us to appeal 
from his decision to the body itself. 

We left the Convention because the only barrier we had 
to the unconstitutional intrusion of the colored element 
into our councils was thus thrown down by an arbitrary 

~ assertion of power by the presiding officer. 

We could not give up your rights as churchmen and as 
our constituents through us, your deputies, to examine and 
pass upon the List of the Clergy. We could not give up 
your right through us to appeal to the body of the Conven- 
tion itself from the ruling of the presiding officer, however 
exalted his position may be. We could not allow the Con- 
stitution of this ancient Church to be thus subverted, and 
an innovation made upon her established order by means 
illegal and unparliamentary.. 

We could not stay where the gavel of the presiding 
officer was deemed a sufficient answer to our assertion of 
your rights. . 


A4 


THERE WAS NO LEGAL CONVENTION IN 1887. 


In withdrawing we left the Convention disorganized, and 
it so continued until its close. 

Twenty Laymen remained in the Convention, represent- 
ing, as it is claimed, thirteen Parishes. (See Journal, p. 24.) 

But let us examine this claim. Two of these Parishes, St. 
Luke’s, Charleston, and Christ: Church, have approved our 
withdrawal, and so repudiated the action of their delegates 
who remained. So the number is reduced to eleven. Of 
these eleven, Mr. Desportes, one of the Deputies from Trin- 
ity, Columbia, stated, in withdrawing, that he represented, 
in so doing, from seven to nine-tenths of the members of his 
Parish, and this was not denied by the two who remained, 
and so may be accepted as true. This would reduce the 
Parishes represented by those who remained to but ten—a 
bare quorum, if they were constitutionally represented. The 
Journal of the next day claims that fifteen Parishes were 
present, but does not mention which. 

But let us inquire (1), were these Parishes truly and con- 
stitutionally represented by those who remained; and (2), 
if these Parishes had been so truly and constitutionally 
represented, what was their strength in the Diocese, as to 
numbers, and contributions to the support of the Church ? 


1. Were these Parishes truly and constitutionally represented 
by those who remained ? 

It will be observed that not one full united delegation 
from any Parish remained. Three of the Deputies of the 
Church of the Holy Communion remained—one withdrew. 
Of the three from Trinity, Columbia, who were present, two 
remained, and one withdrew. The Churches of St. John’s 
Fairfield; Advent Spartanburg; Grace Church Anderson; 
had each two Deputies, who remained. The rest of the 
Parishes who went to make up the supposed quorum were 
represented each by a single Deputy. Did these make a 
constitutional quorum ? 

The Third Article of the Constitution provides : 


45 


Section IV. Lay Deputies, not exceeding four in number, shall be 
elected by each Parish or congregation in union with this Convention, 
from among the members thereof, to represent it in the Convention. 


By this provision, each Parish or congregation is to be 
represented by such number of Lay Deputies, not exceeding 
four, as it may elect. It is conceded that one or more of 
these may represent the Parish, and make up a quorum for 
any business which does not require a vote by orders. 

But the Seventh Article of the Constitution further pro- 
vides: 


21. “On all questions, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution, 
the members shall deliberate and vote as one body; but at any time 
before the result of the vote as taken is finally announced by the Pres- 
ident, any two Clergymen or the Deputies from any two Churches may 
call for a separate vote of each order where the clergy shall vote indi- 
vidually, and the Lay Deputies by Churches, (a majority from each Church 
having one vote), and a majority in both orders shall, in each case, be 
necessary to a decision. And whenever a vote is taken by ballot the ballot- 
ing shall be by orders.” 


Now a majority is defined to be (Worcester ) : 


“The greater number—the part of any number which is greater than 
the other part, or than the sum of all the other parts, more than half.” 


Is one a majority of anything? The very term majority 
implies and assumes that more than one Deputy shall be 
present. But if, to use an expression of Jeremy Taylor, we 
allow for disputation, though we hold the contrary, that 
should there be a single Deputy elected by any parish, he 
might by a forced construction be considered as equal at 
least to a majority of her delegation, it is on the other hand 
clear that in every instance in which more than one 
Deputy, has been elected by any parish, it requires a ma- 
jority two out of three, or.three out of four, to unite in casting 
a vote by orders—for the provision is “ @ majority from each 
Church having one vote.” 

It will be observed the provision is not a majority present 
from each Church haying one vote, but “a majority from 
each Church.” This clearly means a majority of the dele- 


46 


gates elected by each parish or congregation to represent it 
in the Convention. (Sec. JV, Art. LIT) 

When it is intended to provide as to those present or 
absent the Constitution does so in express terms, as in See. II, 
Art. VII, in regard to the election of a Bishop, and in Arti- 
cle XII of altering the Constitution. 

The framers of the Constitution of the General Convention 
were evidently of our opinion. The Second Article pro- 
vides that the Church in each diocese shall be entitled to a 
representation of both the clergy and the laity, and that 
such representation shall consist of not more than four 
clergymen and four laymen, and that in all questions when 
required by the clerical or lay representation from any 
Diocese, each order shall have one vote, and then it goes on 
specifically to provide: 


“Tf the Convention of any Diocese should neglect or decline to ap- 
point Clerical Deputies, or if they should neglect or decline to appoint 
Lay Deputies, or if any of those of either appointed should neglect to 
attend, or be prevented by sickness or any other accident, such Diocese 
shall nevertheless be considered as duly represented by such deputy or deputies 
as may attend, whether lay or clerical.” 


If, then, it required a special provision in the Constitution 
of the General Convention to provide that a Diocese shall 
be considered as duly represented by any deputies who 
might attend, whether they were the full number elected 
or not, should it not require a similar express provision in 
our Constitution? Ifthe framers of our Constitution had 
intended that one deputy might cast the vote of his Church 
when voting by orders, would they not have been careful 
as the framers of the Constitution of the General Conyen- 
tion, specifically to provide that the parish should be con- 
sidered as duly represented by such deputy or deputies as 
might attend, and that on a vote by orders a single deputy 
might cast such vote? Would they, with such purpose in 
view, have used the language they did, to wit: “a majority 
from each church having one yote ?” 

For instance can it be that-St. Luke’s was represented by 


47 


a majority from that church when but one deputy remained 
and three withdrew ? 

With one single exception, that of the Holy Communion, 
of which three out of four deputies remained, no parish was 
represented in the body which remained by a majority of 
the deputies elected; and no other parish except that of 
the Holy Communion was represented by those who 
remained so as to be able to cast a vote by orders, had the 
Convention otherwise been legally organized. 

If even, therefore, the Bishop had the power.to overrule the 
decision of the Convention announced by himself that the 

Convention was not organized for business, and by his 
prerogative, as was claimed for him, disregarding the vote 
of the body to declare it so organized, he and those who 
remained were still unable to transact any business requiring 
a vote by orders. 
~ The election of a Standing Committee, which the Consti- 
tution requires to be by ballot (Article IX), and the at- 
tempted alteration in the Constitution, which the Constitu- 
tion requires to be made by a vote of Orders (Article XII); 
were both void and of no effect, even had the illegality of 
the Bishop’s ruling not otherwise vitiated its proceedings. 

2. What was the strength in the Diocese as to those who re- 
mained as to numbers and contribution to the Church ? 

One hundred and seventy-two Deputies were elected to 
represent the parishes in this Convention. | (See Journal, p. 
14.) Of these seventy-two attended. Out of these seventy- 
two but twenty were found to remain after the Bishop’s re- 
fusal to allow an appeal from his ruling. And whom and 
what did these twenty represent ? 

We have not yet the annual tabulated statement of the 
Parochial and Missionary Reports for this year, but upon 
examining those of last year we have compiled a statement 
of the number of members and communicants respectively 
of the parishes which withdrew from the Convention and 
of those which remained, and of their respective contribu- 
tions to Parochical and Missionary work in the Diocese, and 
a like statement of the Parishes which were not represented 


48 


at the Converltion. From this table we present the follow- 
ing summary : . 


CONTRIBUTIONS—DIOCESAN AND 











| 
) 
} 
; 
| 
| 
| 
| 


Parishes which withdrew, 
or which have approved| 
the action of those which. 
did (including half of 
Trinity, Columbia)........... 4,999) 2,272. $514 sy $721 02 

Parishes ‘which remained, 
and which have nol since 
disapproved the course of 
their Deputies who did 
(including half of Trinity, 


/ PAROCHICAL, 
| n — a a 
Z | tse 
| 4| 3 4] ) a 
| iS Var uk Ir < 
| fa |ae*) = | la 
1p PSS sD a ° Tora, 
mR | at Qs = 
| = > a4 Zz 8 
leléeié a: | 3 a 
m}/O!| Oo co” fo Sheer 





$1,728 44) $38,116 49 $41,140 82 


Columbia... 2,315) 900 13175) 171 99} 450 83] 11,1907) 11,944 84 
Parishes not represented in | 
the Convention................. kee) 835 128 25) 186 75) 486 48 48 














ae 
4,007, $774 €2|$1,029 76) "$2,065 25) $56,908 87 $61,647 03 
a 

It will thus be seen that (allowing Trinity Chureh, Co- 
lumbia to be equally divided instead of from 7% to % in 
sympathy with those who withdrew, as stated without con- 
tradiction on the floor of the Convention) those who with- 
drew represented more than half of all the souls in econnec- 
tion with the Church represented and not represented, and 
more than two-thirds of those who were represented ; that 
we represented more than half of all the communicants of 
the Church represented and unrepresented, and two-thirds 
of those represented. 

But the disparity is still greater when we come to examine 
the table of contributions to Diocesan and Parochial ex- 
penses. 

Thus those of us who withdrew represent Parishes which 
pay nearly two-thirds of the Convention expenses. More 
than two-thirds of the Bishop’s fund, and nearly two- 
thirds of the contributions to missions, that is of all repre- 
sented and unrepresented in the late Convention. 

We represent very nearly four times as much paid to 


49 


the Convention fund, more than four times as much to the 
Bishop’s fund, and nearly four times as much to mis- 
sions as those who remained in the Convention. We 
represent more than two-thirds of all the contributions to 
Parochial work, and more than two-thirds of all Diocesan 
and Parochial combined. We represent nearly four times 
as much of Parochial contributions, and nearly the same 
of all Diocesan and Parochial contributions combined, as 
those who remained. 

In the divisions which took place in the Convention, 
‘the small Missionary Parishes of St. John’s, John’s Island 
(150 souls), St. Mark’s, Clarendon (61 souls), Church on 
Edisto (50 souls), and Grace Church, Anderson (60 souls)— 
numbering in all 320 souls, and represented by five De- 
puties in all, out-voted St. Philip’s, St. Paul’s, and Grace 
Churches, numbering 2,104 souls, represented in the Con- 
vention by twelve Deputies. These four small Parishes, 
not one of which is even self-supporting, out-voted these 
large Churches, whose annual contributions are nearly 
$20,000, out of about $60,000 of all the contributions in 
the Diocese. 

With this showing, are not the views of those who with- 
drew entitled to consideration ? 


CoNCLUSION. 


We withdrew from the Convention and left it, as we 
maintain, in the same disorganized condition in which it 
had been up to the time of our withdrawal; and we deny 
that its subsequent proceedings are of any validity. We do 
not recognize the officers which those who remained elected, 
or admit the change in the Constitution which they under- 
took to make. We do not admit that — was any organ- 
ized Convention in 1887. 

We withdrew from this body, but we’ did not secede from 
the Church. We accept the Bishop’s statement upon the 
adjournment of the body, calling itself the Convention. 
He said : 

4 


50 


‘ 

What is the effect of the withdrawal of these members? Some, 
I understand, think that they have withdrawn from the Church. 
Why, the Convention is not the Church; it is not the Diocese. 
It is simply the organ, the hand which the Diocese uses to effect 
its sacred purposes. Nor have even the Churches themselves — 
withdrawn from the Convention—merely their delegates have with- 
drawn. The parishes are still in union with us, and will continue 
to be in union until by some organic action of their own they with- 
draw themselves from us and refuse to send deputies to the Conven- 
tion. Even in that case they will be a part of the Diocese. So long as 
the people are in communion with the Bishop they are in the Diocese. 
For if it were necessary that a congregation should be in union with 
Convention to be a part of the Diocese, a great many would not bein 
union with the Church, as, for instance, St. Mark’s Chureh, which has 
never belonged to this Convention.” 


It is now for you, brethren of the laity, to determine as to 
your future course. You may send deputies to the next 
Convention, or not, as you shall think is best. You will 
not impair your connection with the Church itself should 
you determine to withdraw from union with the Conven- 
tion. In that case you will still be entitled as of matter of 
right to the ministrations of the Bishop and clergy. On the 
other hand, you may send your deputies there with instruc- 
tions to abandon the position we have taken; you may 
elect others who will vote to change the ancient order of 
the Church, in this its third century in this State, to admit 
the colored element into its councils, and to brave the 
dangers in doing so, from which we shrink. You may send 
others who will give up your right to scrutinize and pass 
upon the List of the Clergy, whether made up by the Bishop 
or Standing Committee—who will make no question as to 
the right of appeal from the decision of the chair upon the 
organization of the Convention, or upon any other point. 

Now that you have the whole facts before you, you must 
judge for yourselves as to our course. But those who 
withdrew from this last Convention cannot be made the in- 
struments of inflicting, as we believe, such wrong and injury 
upon the Church, as we would have done had we remained 
and abandoned your right to pass upon the clergy list, and 
submitted to the refusal of the President to allow an appeal 


dl 


fromhis decision. If this is to be done, you must choose 
other Weputies to represent you in doing it. 
C. G. MEMMINGER, 
Deputy from St. Paul’s Church, Radcliffeboro, Charleston. 
EDWARD McCRADY, JR., 
Deputy from St. Philip’s Church, Charleston. 
W.ST. JULIEN JERVEY, 
Depittg from St. Michael’s Church, Charleston. 
W. C. BENET, 
Deputy from Trinity Church, Abbeville. 
C. E. R. DRAYTON, 
Deputy from St. Thaddzus Church, Aiken. 


Committee. 


APPENDIX A. 


[JOURNAL OF THE CONVENTION OF NEW YORK, 1846.] 


The Committee in relation to St. Philip’s Church and other Colored 
Congregations, submitted the following Report : 


REPORT COMMITTEE ON ST. PHILIP’S CHURCH. 


The Committee to which was referred the subject of the admission 
of St. Philip's, and other colored congregations, into representation in 
the Convention of this Diocese, report : 


That, in their view, the question referred to them is one exclusively 
relating to the temporal government of the Diocese, and is wholly un- 
connected with the religious rights or duties of the applicants. The 
Convention is but a part of what may be called the civil machinery, 
instituted by human wisdom, for the purpose of regulating the society 
by which and for whose benefit it was established. It is no more a 
part of our Church in this conntry, in a religious view, than are the 
civil establishments and the connection with the Government in Eng- 
land part of the Church there. In both countries the arrangements for 
the administration of the government of the Church are the result of 
experience and adaptation to circumstances. Among the considerations 
of expediency which any body of men, uniting together for a common 
purpose, would deem the most important, must be that of determining 
with whom they would associate, and who should be permitted to par- 
ticipate in the government ofthe society. Thus, for reasons of ex- 
pediency, females, however wortby, are by our Canons excluded from 
being representatives in our Conventions, and are, by law, incapable 
of being incorporated as members of Churches. Candidates for Orders 
are, bya Canon of the General Convention, prohibited from being 
members of that body. These instances are sufficient to illustrate the 
principles on which our Church organizations are founded, and to show 
that they are entirely distinct from the religious rights and spiritual 
privileges of those who, in a spiritual view, are members of our 
Churches. Ifit be an incident to Church membership to be repre- 
sented in the Councils of the Church, then have we, in common with 
all Christian denominations, from the time of the Apostles, unjustly and 
tyranically deprived female members of sacred rights. 

When society is unfortunately divided into classes, when some are 
intelligent, retined, and elevated in tone and character, and others are 
ignorant, coarse and debased, however unjustly, and when sach 
prejudices exist between them as to prevent social intercourse on equal 


53 


terms, it would seem inexpedient to encounter snch prejudices un- 
necessarily, and to endeavor to compel the one class to associate, on 
equal terms, in the consultations on the affairs of the Diocese, with 
those whom they:would not admit to their tables, or into their family 
‘circles. Nay, whom they would not admit into their pews during pub- 
lic worship. 

If Christian duty require that we should in all respects treat equally 
all persons, without reference to their social condition, should we not 
commence the discharge of that duty in our individual and social rela- 
tions? And is not the fact that we have never so regarded our duty, or 
have wilfully violated it, sufficient evidence of the existence of a state 
of society among us that renders an amalgamation of such discordant 
materials impracticable, if not hazardous to our unity and harmony, 
We deeply sympathize with the colored race in our country, we feel 
acutely their wrongs, and not the least among them, their social degra- 
dation. But this cannot prevent our seeing the fact that they are 
socially degraded, and are not regarded as proper associates for the class 
of persons who attend our Convention. We object not to the color of 
the skin, but we question their possession of those qualities which 
would render their intercourse with the members of a Church Conven- 
tion useful or agreeable, even to themselves. 

We should make the same objections to persons of the same social 
class, however pure may be their blood, or however transparent their 
skin. It isimpossible,in the nature of things, that such opposites 
should commingle wlth any pleasure or satisfaction to either. The 
colored people have themselves shown their conviction of this truth by 
separating themselves from the whites, and forming distinct congrega- 
tions, where they are not continuaily humbled by being treated as in- 
feriors. Why should not the principle on which they have separated 
themselves be carried out in the other branches of our Church organi- 
zation? Striking instances are furnished in the early, and indeed in 
every period of the history of the Christian Church, of conformity in 
outward things, and in matters not essential to the customs, usages, 
and even prejudices of theage. Wehavein ourown country inveterate 
customs and prejudices on the subject under consideration, which can- 
not be overcome. Is it not the part of wisdom to submit to them until, 
by a change of circumstances, the occasion for them shall cease to exist ? 
Would not our present duty to this unfortunate race be fully performed 
by extended and liberal efforts to improve their mind and their condi- 
tion, by intellectual culture, by religious instruction, and, as they ad- 
vance in intelligence and refinement, by relaxing the severities of caste, 
which now separate us, until by degrees they become fitted for the 
duties and enjoyments ofa higher social condition, and then admit 
them in our public and private intercourse, to free and equal com- 
munion ? 

The efforts of our zealous philanthropists to breakedown the barriers 
which custom has interposed, and which have so long existed between 


54 


the colored and other races, and against the laws of society and the 
sentiments and feelings of the community, to compel an unnatural and 
forced equality, have hitherto been attended with results equally un- 
fortunate to the peculiar objects of their solicitude, and to the great in- 
terests and beneficient institutions in connection with which such 
efforts have been made. They have been directed to our common 
schools, and not satisfied with the abundant provision which has in 
many places been made for the education of colored children, their 
special friends and advocates have insisted that they should be ad- 
mitted to the schools of white children, and have thus caused dissen- 
sion and conflict, to the great injury of those institutions, while feel- 
ings of sympathy and commiseration have been too frequently con- 
verted into disgust and anger. 

Efforts of a similar character, and for the same purpose, have been 
made to give position in our Churches to colored people. which would. 
compel association and intercourse with them. It is obvious that such 
movements are but incipient steps to ulterior objects in relation to the 
vexed and irritating subject of slavery. Beginning with simple, and 
apparently just propositions respecting the abstract rights of this portion 
of our population, their professed friends and advocates have advanced, 
step to step, until they have prepared the way to agitate the bold ques- 
tion of the Christian character of those whose sentiments do not accord 
with their own. The rending asunder of Churches, the disruption of 
societies, bitter animosities, and all manner of uncharitableness, have 
been the invariable results. 

By the wise and prudent counsels of the Fathers of our Church, our 
denomination has been hitherto happily free from the agitation of 
these and kindred questions—such as temperance, or abstinence from 
liquors and wine—and the consequences have been peace and quiet 
among ourselves, and the respect of others. An instance of this cau- 
tion is furnished in the case of St. Philip’s Church, whose application 
to be represented in the Convention, is now under consideration. It 
appears from the Minutes of the Standing Committee of this Diocese, 
that in March, 1819, on the application of the lamented Bishop Hobart 
to that Committee, for advice in relation to the admission of a colored 
person as a candidate for Holy Orders, they unanimously advised his 
admission upon the distinct understanding that, in the event of his 
being admitted to Orders, he should not “be entitled to a seat in the 
Convention, nor should the congregation, of which he may have the 
charge, be represented therein.” 

It is understood that these conditions were approved by the Bishop, 
and were assented to by the applicant and the congregation. And 
although, that Church has been organized and in existence for more 
than a quarter of a century, it has, until now, abided by the terms they 
settled. 

The present applicants, it is presumed, were not aware of these 
arrangements, as it is not to be supposed that they would, intentionally, 


55 


be guilty of a violation of good faith. Thus, for this long period, has 
this question been actually and peaceably settled, and remained undis- 
turbed. 

The legal, moral and equitable right of the Convention to determine 
what Churches it will admit into union, so as to entitle them to a rep- 
resentation in this body, seems to your Committee unquestionable. The 
fourth Canon provides certain indispensable conditions+to entitle any 
Church to admission, but nowhere is it declared that these are the only 
conditions, and the invariable practice of the Convention in taking the 
vote upon the admission of any Church, shows that it has reserved to 
itself the right of judging of the expediency of the measure, after all 
the former requisites are complied with. Otherwise, the report of the 
Committee, certifying to the fact of such compliance, would be in itself 
conclusive. The provision in the same Canon requiring the prelimi- 
nary approbation of the Bishop, or of the Standing Committee “of the 
incorporation of such Church,” relates only to the separate and inde- 
pendent existence of the congregation as a separate body, and not to its 
union with, or representation in this Convention. 

Besides, the very requirements of the Canon that Churches shall be 
politically incorporated before admission into union with the Conyen- 
tion, shows conclusively that the right of admission is subject to regu- 
lation, and therefore that such question is one purely of expediency, 
and not ene of Christian privilege or right. Cases may easily be con- 
ceived, and such have actually occurred, where it would not only be 
highly inexpedient, but grossly unjust to existing Churches to admit 
into union new applicants. Various circumstances, more or less im- 
portant, will necessarily enter into the consideration of the Convention, 
in determining such a question. In the short time allowed the Com- 
mittee to consider the subject and to express their views, they have 
been unable to give such a full exhibition of all the considerations 
which present themselves, as they would have desired. 

They think, however, that they have said enough to cause reflection 
and to show how full of difficulty would be the adoption of the principle 
in relation to St. Philip’s Church, or any other colored congregation, of 
admitting their representatives to seats in this Convention. If once 
here, they would be entitled to all the consideration and to participate 
in all the duties and stations to which members may be assigned, or we 
shall practically repudiate the principle which admitted them. 

It is not believed that this Convention, for instance, would send one 
of them as a deupty to the General Convention, on account of the 
offence it would occasion to our brethren of other Dioceses. Thus 
their condition would be practically and continually one of inferiority 
and humiliation—more painfully aggravated by the expectation induced 
by an act which apparently promised their perfect equality. Your 
Committee do not believe that such an equality can be produced; that 
in the nature of things it can exist in this community—great and pal- 
pable inequality must prevail to the extent of preventing the colored 


56 


race from any active participation in our Church government—and they 
believe that an attempt to correct it, contrary to the feelings and cus- 
toms of our country, would not only be abortive, but would be attended 
with the worst consequences to our unity, our harmony, and our effi- 
ciency. They therefore recommend that neither St. Philip’s, nor any 
other colored congregation, be admitted into union with this Conven- 
tion, so as to entitle them to a representation therein. ‘The consequence 
of such a determination probably will be, that such Churches and con- 


gregations will not be responsible to, or under the government or con- ~ 


trol of this Convention, but remain subject to the ordinary jurisdiction 

of their Bishop—and when their members become adequate, may have 

Church Councils of their own for their own peculiar government. 

All which is respectfully submitted, 
(Signed) WM. H. HARISON. 
REUBEN SHERWOOD. 
J. C. SPENCER. 
New York, October 2, 1846, 


AP PE RD EX: B. 


Frat Rock, SEpTEMBER 28th, 1881. 
Rt. Rev. W. B. W. Howe, Bishop : 


Rr. Rey. anp Dear Srr: The thoughtful Christians of the Southern 
States see that in the providence of Goda great duty has been cast 
upon them by being placed in the midst of the ignorant multitude of 
colored population which surrounds them. The members of the Epis- 
copal Church responded to this duty during the period of slavery, by 
erecting chapels for public worship on many plantations, and by pro- 
viding for religious worship and teaching of the colored population in 
all the Parish Churches. 

Emancipation has changed all this; and on the return of peace, the 
colored population of all denominations retired from the white 
Churches, and in spite of every effort which has been made for joint 
worship, they have allestablished for themselves separate places of wor- 
ship, and in nearly all these have set apart Churches of their own color, 
It is now more than fifteen years that this state of things has continued, 
and the most persistent efforts of those ministers of our Church who 
had been their Pastors for many years have been unable to bring back 
to their Congregations even those members to whom they formerly 
ministered in person. Theonly exception is a small fraction of colored 
persons who had always been free, and who differed in so many respects 
from the colored Congregations as not to affect materially the policy 
which is recognized for the general colored population, 

It may then he affirmed as a settled fact that the colored population 
will not unite with the whites in common religious worship or organi- 
zations. 

Any effort, therefore, to continue the former arrangement for mixed 
worship will result simply inexcluding them fromthe Church. Would 
it not be better to devise some plan which, without yielding up things 
essential, might yet afford to this large oncldeon in some form the 
benefits of the ministrations of our Church ? 

The Church of Christ, through one catholic and universal Church, has 
always embraced various and separate organizations, and our own 
branch, since the Revolutionary War, has afforded an example of 
separation without destroying unity. Separate nationalities, therefore, 
are admitted to bea sufficient foundation for separate organizations. 
Is it essential to these that the nationalities should occupy different 
territory ? It was once thought that the Parish Churches must occupy 
different territory, but the necessities of cites compelled an abandon- 


5 


58 


ment of this idea, and the Parish jurisdiction was transferred from the 
territory, to the members of each particular congregation. 

By parity of reasoning anational Church instead of being designated 
by territory might be organized for the members of a particular nation- — 
ality, for example take the large body of Germans in our midst and 
who would not understand ministrations in English, would it not be 
consistant with principle to give them ministrations in their own lan- 
guage. And has not the Church recognized the necessity by giving them 
the Prayer Book and Testament. Their Pastor would preach to them 
in their own language, and would anything seem more reasonable than 
to allow them a Bishop of their own nationality and habits. 

The apparent anomaly of two Bishops in the same territory, would 
be as easily adjusted as has been with two Rectors in the same city. 

I would respectfully submit then that our Church must accept the 
suggestion, that there must be a separate organization for the negroes, 
and that it will have to adopt legislation to thisend. But inasmuch asa 
general question requires the action of the General Convention, and 
would demand much time, I propose to consider if something Saisie 
be done in the meantime in the separate Dioceses. 


1. The first measure which I would suggest would be to organize sep- 
arate colored congregations in proper localities. 

These localities can be adjusted by the previous experience of the 
Church. They formerly extended over the whole lower country of our 
State and are so numerous, that even if the negroes were willing to 
accept white ministers a sufficient number of them could not be had or 
supported. It must be accepted therefore, as a necessity, that the 
Preachers in these Churches must be colored. 

Their numbers would necessarily be so great and their acquaintance 
with Church government so imperfect that no Diocesan Convention 
could admit them to seats. They could not, therefore, be accepted as 
part of the regular Clergy with existing privileges, but would properly 
be commissioned as evangelists or some inferior order of Clergy. 


2. My second proposition then would be, that the Bishop should in 
such manner as might be deemed advisable appoint colored Lay Evan- 
gelists or some other inferior order of Clergymen for each of the con- 
gregations which may be established to hold office and to be subject to 
removal at his pleasure. 


3. In order to locate Churches, organize congregations, and recommend 
appointment and dismissal of preachers or teachers, and generally to 
superintend the whole colored Church arrangements, the Bishop shall 
nominate a Standing Committee of six members of our Church, who 
shall forthwith take charge of the whole subject and adopt such meas- 
ures for organizing, evangelizing and bringing into the Church the 
whole colored population as they shall deem wise and proper, subject 
to the approval of the Bishop. 


aby 


4. The Church, when organized. shall be placed under the supervision 
of the nearest and most conveniently situated minister of our Church ; 
and it shall be his duty to attend said Churches at convenient seasons 
to administer the ordinances of the Church and to see that the services 
are properly conducted, and the said Clergyman shall report to the 
Bishop or Standing Committee any irregularities or improvements as 
he shall see fit. 


All which is respectfully submitted for your consideration, with as- 
surances of respect and esteem from 
Yours truly, 
(Signed.) C. G. MEMMINGER. 





